22342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

mechanism would help to ensure that 

Tribal priorities are met in providing 

USF support for the extension of mobile 

voice service. To the extent other 

options may be preferable, commenters 

are requested to discuss alternatives in 

detail and explain how these options 

would work in the context of the 

proposed competitive bidding 

mechanism. Commenters are also 

invited to provide information about 

what factors are most important in 

targeting limited support for mobile 

wireless service within Tribal lands. 

2. Possible Requirement for Engagement 

With Tribal Governments Prior to 

Auction 

6. Several commenters suggest that 

parties participating in a Mobility Fund 

auction seeking support to serve Tribal 

lands be required to demonstrate that 

Tribal governments have been formally 

and effectively engaged in the planning 

process and that the service to be 

provided will advance the goals 

established by the Tribal government. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

those proposals. What issues should 

receive priority in a flow of information 

and exchange of ideas with Tribal 

governments? What subjects of 

discussion will increase the potential 

for sustainability and adoption of the 

contemplated service? Among other 

things, the Commission believes the 

topics of engagement with Tribal 

governments could include: (1) Needs 

assessment, deployment planning and 

inclusion of Tribal anchor institutions 

and communities; (2) feasibility and 

sustainability planning; (3) marketing 

supported services in a culturally 

sensitive manner; (4) rights-of-way 

processes, land use permitting, facilities 

siting and cultural preservation review 

processes; and, (5) compliance with 

Tribal business and licensing 

requirements. At what point in time 

should any such engagement 

requirement apply (e.g., at the shortform or long-form application stage)? 

Commenters are invited to address the 

appropriate scope and timing of a 

potential consultation requirement. 

3. Possible Preference for TriballyOwned and -Controlled Providers 

7. At least one comment to the 

Mobility Fund NPRM suggested a 

preference for Tribally-owned and 

-controlled providers. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comment on a 

proposal that would provide a form of 

bidding credit to qualified Triballyowned and -controlled providers. If a 

provider qualified for this bidding 

credit, its per-unit bid amount would be 

reduced by a designated percentage for 

purposes of comparing it to other bids 

made—although if the bid were to win, 

support would be calculated at the full, 

undiscounted bid amount. That is, the 

‘‘reduced’’ bid would fall lower in the 

ranking of bids from lowest to highest, 

making it more likely that a Triballyowned and -controlled entity would be 

among the winning bidders eligible to 

receive funding, but the bidding credit 

would not reduce the amount of funding 

that the entity would receive if it were 

to be awarded support. The Commission 

seeks comment on this approach. The 

Commission also invites comment on 

whether a Tribal preference is 

appropriate in the context of awarding 

universal service funds. To the extent 

the Commission wishes to adopt such a 

bidding credit for Tribally-owned and 

-controlled providers, what percentage 

would be appropriate? Are there other 

methods the Commission should 

consider to provide a preference to 

Tribally-owned and -controlled 

providers? The Commission notes that 

the establishment of an absolute Tribal 

priority, as proposed in the mobile 

spectrum context and adopted in the 

context of the Tribal Priority for radio 

broadcast licensing, may not be 

appropriate here. This is because in the 

reverse auction mechanism proposed for 

the Mobility Fund, an award would not 

be made for each area, but instead 

support would be granted only for those 

areas where the per-unit bids are lowest. 

8. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should employ 

both a priority unit mechanism and a 

bidding preference for Tribal entities at 

the same time. And, if not, which of 

these mechanisms may work more 

effectively in a Mobility Fund auction to 

target support consistent with Tribal 

needs? 

4. Timing of a Tribal Mobility Fund 

Auction 

9. In the Mobility Fund NPRM, the 

Commission noted that addressing 

Mobility Fund support for Tribal lands 

on a separate track could be beneficial 

in providing adequate time to consult 

with Tribal governments and seek their 

input. While commenters generally 

supported creation of a separate Tribal 

Mobility Fund, they cautioned that 

addressing Tribal issues on a ‘‘separate 

track’’ should not put them on a ‘‘slow 

track.’’ The Commission agrees that 

Tribal issues are a priority and should 

be resolved expeditiously in order to 

speed the provision of services on Tribal 

lands. The Commission observes, 

however, that there are pending 

proposals regarding utilization of 

spectrum over Tribal lands that could 

benefit from the support that may be 

available through a Tribal Mobility 

Fund auction. In particular, the 

Improving Communications Services for 

Native Nations by Promoting Greater 

Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal 

Lands, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

76 FR 18476, April 4, 2011, proposes a 

variety of options for Tribal entities to 

access spectrum over Tribal lands. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

extent to which these open issues 

should influence the timing of a 

possible Tribal Mobility Fund auction. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Mobility Fund 

NPRM included an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential 

impact on small entities of the 

Commission’s proposal. The 

Commission invites parties to file 

comments on the IRFA in light of this 

additional notice. 

Procedural Matters 

Ex Parte Presentations. This matter 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance with 

the ex parte rules. Persons making oral 

ex parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Margaret W. Wiener, 

Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9860 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 600 

[Docket No. 110218147–1199–01] 

RIN 0648–BA74 

National Standard 10 Guidelines 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 22343 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comments; 

notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 

to provide background information and 

request public comment on potential 

adjustments to the National Standard 10 

Guidelines. 

DATES: Written comments regarding the 

issues in this ANPR must be received by 

5 p.m., local time, on July 20, 2011. A 

public meeting to obtain additional 

comments on the items discussed in this 

ANPR will be held at the NOAA Science 

Center in Silver Spring, MD, on May 19, 

2011 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. NMFS may 

hold additional meetings during the 

comment period and will announce 

those meetings in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: A public meeting will be 

held on May 19, 2011 from 1 p.m. to 3 

p.m. at the NOAA Science Center, 1301 

East-West Highway; Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by ‘‘0648–BA74’’, by any one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 301–713–1193, Attn: Debra 

Lambert. 

• Mail: Debra Lambert; National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; 1315 

East-West Highway, Room 13403; Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publically accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

N/A in the required fields, if you wish 

to remain anonymous). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Debra Lambert, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 301–713–2341. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 301(a) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) contains 10 

national standards (NS) with which all 

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and 

their amendments and implementing 

regulations must be consistent. Section 

301(b) of the MSA requires that ‘‘the 

Secretary establish advisory guidelines 

(which shall not have the force and 

effect of law), based on the national 

standards to assist in the development 

of fishery management plans.’’ 

Conforming to the NS guidelines (50 

CFR part 600, subpart D) when 

preparing an FMP, FMP amendment, 

and regulations is essential to properly 

addressing the intentions of Congress 

when it established and revised the 

MSA. 

The Sustainable Fisheries Act, signed 

into law in 1996, added National 

Standard 10 (NS10) to the MSA (15 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). National Standard 

10 states: ‘‘Conservation and 

management measures shall, to the 

extent practicable, promote the safety of 

human life at sea.’’ NMFS published 

final guidelines for NS10 in 1998 (63 FR 

24212; May 1, 1998). More recently, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006, added 

section 303(a)(9)(C) to the MSA, which 

states that fishery impact statements 

shall address the impact of conservation 

and management measures and include 

possible mitigation measures for ‘‘the 

safety of human life at sea, including 

whether and to what extent such 

measures may affect the safety of 

participants to the fishery.’’ 

Need for Revision 

Commercial fishing is one of the most 

dangerous occupations because fishing 

operations are often conducted under 

poor weather conditions, high winds, 

cold temperatures, and on moving 

platforms that can be slippery or icy; 

some gear types can be dangerous to 

operate; a number of structural or 

mechanical problems can arise on 

vessels; and the work can be physically 

straining and lead to fatigue. 

Recreational fishing, including the forhire charter and party-boat segments, 

can also be a dangerous activity with 

participants facing many of the same 

risks as commercial participants. 

The National Standard 10 Guidelines 

are the primary source of guidance for 

the consideration of safety issues in 

fishery management regulations. The 

current Guidelines are relatively short 

and have four main sections with the 

following elements: (1) A general 

statement that fishing is a dangerous 

occupation and recommendation that 

Regional Fishery Management Councils 

(Councils) reduce safety risks when 

developing management measures; an 

explanation of the qualifying phrase ‘‘to 

the extent practicable’’ in NS10; and an 

explanation that the phrase ‘‘safety of 

human life at sea’’ refers to both the 

safety of a fishing vessel and the safety 

of persons aboard the vessel; (2) a list of 

safety issues to consider when 

evaluating management measures; (3) a 

recommendation that during the 

preparation of any FMP, FMP 

amendment, or regulation that might 

affect safety of human life at sea, the 

Council should consult with the U.S. 

Coast Guard and fishing industry as to 

the nature and extent of any adverse 

impact; and (4) a list of mitigation 

measures that could be considered 

when management measures are 

developed. 

Recent events suggest a need to revise 

the guidelines for NS10. The current 

Guidelines are thirteen years old and 

fisheries management and fishing vessel 

safety science in general has evolved 

during that time. NOAA has new fishery 

management requirements and policies 

in place, and the implementation of 

these measures will lead to changes in 

the way fisheries are managed. Major 

changes in fisheries management that 

change the way fishing operations are 

conducted, including catch share 

programs, could impact the safety of 

fishermen at sea, and those impacts 

should be assessed during the 

management process. 

As mentioned above, section 

303(a)(9)(C) to the MSA states that 

fishery impact statements shall include 

possible mitigation measures for ‘‘the 

safety of human life at sea, including 

whether and to what extent such 

measures may affect the safety of 

participants to the fishery.’’ This is a 

relatively new requirement (added by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006) and NMFS 

could provide guidance on addressing 

this requirement in the revised National 

Standard 10 Guidelines. 

There are also external factors that 

point to the need to focus on safety at 

sea. The Coast Guard Authorization Act 

(CGAA) of 2010 was signed by President 

Obama on October 15, 2010. Section 604 

of the CGAA builds on requirements set 

forth in the Commercial Fishing 

Industry Vessel Safety Act of 1988, 

including the following: It authorizes 

the U.S. Coast Guard to examine at 

dockside, at least once every 2 years, 

fishing vessels that operate beyond 

3 miles to ensure that they meet safety 

standards; it authorizes and requires a 

training program for the operators of 

fishing vessels that operate beyond 

3 miles; and it establishes design and 

construction standards for all new 

vessels. Furthermore, the CGAA 

requires that Alternative Compliance 

and Safety Agreement programs be 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
22344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

developed for certain groups of existing 

fishing vessels. These new requirements 

highlight an emphasis on improving 

fishing vessel safety. NMFS will ensure 

that revisions to the NS10 Guidelines 

will complement the new mandates of 

the CGAA. 

The current NS10 Guidelines do not 

contain any guidance on analytical 

methods to evaluate safety. Recent work 

by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health and the 

U.S. Coast Guard has shown that the 

fishery management process can more 

explicitly address safety at sea by 

analyzing fatalities and calculating 

fatality rates for the fishery and 

understanding the overall trend in 

fatality rates. This information can be 

used in risk assessments to identify 

major hazards within a fishery. NMFS 

could include guidance on the 

analytical approaches for addressing 

safety considerations in the revised 

NS10 Guidelines. 

For the above reasons, NMFS believes 

it is appropriate and timely to revise 

NS10 Guidelines and is accepting 

public comments on potential revisions 

to the Guidelines. Through the revision 

of the NS10 Guidelines, NMFS intends 

to enhance consideration of safety 

issues in fisheries management. 

Public Comments 

To help determine the scope of issues 

to be addressed and to identify 

significant issues related to this action, 

NMFS is soliciting written comments on 

this ANPR and will hold a public 

meeting at the NOAA Science Center in 

Silver Spring, MD, on May 19, 2011 

from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. NMFS may hold 

additional public meetings during the 

comment period and will announce 

those meetings in the Federal Register. 

The public is encouraged to submit 

comments related to the specific ideas 

mentioned in this ANPR. NMFS is also 

seeking additional ideas and solutions 

to improve safety at sea and the NS10 

Guidelines. All written comments 

received by the due date will be 

considered in drafting proposed 

revisions to the NS10 Guidelines. 

Issues Under Consideration 

In considering potential revisions to 

the NS10 Guidelines, NMFS has 

identified the following list of issues 

related to safety of human life at sea. 

NMFS seeks public comment on the 

scope of this ANPR generally and the 

potential for guidance on the following 

fisheries safety issues. 

1. Assembling Fatality, Injury, and 

Vessel Loss Information: Establishing 

guidance on how to assemble and 

analyze data on fatalities and injuries 

for each Federal fishery using 

information from NMFS’s National 

Observer Program, U.S. Coast Guard 

investigations, U.S. Coast Guard’s 

Marine Information and Safety and Law 

Enforcement database system, and 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health data. 

2. Developing Fatality, Injury, and 

Vessel Loss Rates: Establishing guidance 

on how to estimate workforce for each 

Federal fishery in order to calculate 

fatality and injury rates. By combining 

fatality and non-fatal injury information 

with workforce estimates, injury, 

fatality, and vessel loss rates can be 

calculated to identify trends over time. 

3. Evaluating Risks: Establishing 

general guidance on how to conduct 

fishery specific risk assessments, which 

can help identify major safety hazards 

within a fishery. The frequency for 

conducting such assessments will also 

be explored. 

4. Safety Considerations and 

Mitigation Measures: Risk assessments 

may identify that fishery conservation 

and management measures are needed 

and appropriate to improve safety at sea. 

The current NS10 Guidelines contain 

three safety considerations (operating 

environment, gear and vessel loading 

requirements, and limited season and 

area fisheries) and eight mitigation 

measures to consider when developing 

management measures (see 50 CFR 

600.355 paragraphs (c) and (d)). NMFS 

seeks comments on these sections and, 

if appropriate, additional safety 

considerations and mitigation measures 

that could be added to the Guidelines. 

For example, NMFS could consider how 

fishery management measures can better 

complement and reinforce U.S. Coast 

Guard safety regulations. In addition, 

where regulations currently restrict 

vessel upgrades or replacement, 

mitigation measures could include 

allowing for vessel replacement in a 

fleet so that older vessels can be 

replaced with newer and safer vessels. 

Other potential mitigation measures 

could include eliminating or reducing 

penalties for cutting fishing trips short 

due to weather or other conditions and 

extending fishing seasons to allow for 

quotas to be reached. 

5. Recreational Fisheries: NMFS 

welcomes information about safety 

issues in both the private recreational 

and the recreational for-hire 

components of recreational fisheries and 

suggestions on how to address them. 

6. Establishing a Safety Committee: 

The current NS10 Guidelines (50 CFR 

600.355 paragraph (d)) recommend that 

Councils consult with the U.S. Coast 

Guard and the fishing industry during 

the development of management 

measures that might affect the safety of 

human life at sea. NMFS welcomes 

comments on this guidance and if 

improvements to the consultation 

process are necessary. For example, 

NMFS could recommend that Councils 

and the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary), as appropriate, establish a 

Safety Committee or Safety Advisory 

Panel that regularly reports on ongoing 

activities to reduce injuries, fatalities, 

and vessel losses within their 

jurisdiction. U.S. Coast Guard 

personnel, NMFS National Observer 

Program personnel, and state 

enforcement officers would be 

encouraged to participate on such 

committees and/or panels. 

7. Stock Assessment and Fishery 

Evaluation Reports: Establishing 

guidance for the type of safety 

information to include in Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

(SAFE) reports. The National Standard 2 

Guidelines state that safety information 

should be summarized in SAFE reports. 

SAFE reports provide Councils and the 

Secretary with important scientific 

information needed for management 

purposes and different types of safety 

information could be added to these 

reports to better inform the Councils 

and the Secretary. 

8. Fishery Impact Statements: 

Establishing guidance for addressing 

safety issues in fishery impact 

statements, as required by the MSA. 

Fishery impact statements are supposed 

to address the impact of conservation 

and management measures and include 

possible mitigation measures for ‘‘the 

safety of human life at sea, including 

whether and to what extent such 

measures may affect the safety of 

participants to the fishery’’ (MSA 

section 303(a)(9)(C)). 

Special Accommodations 

The public meeting to be held at the 

NOAA Science Center on May 19, 2011 

from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. will be accessible 

to people with physical disabilities. 

Request for sign language interpretation 

or other auxiliary aids should be 

directed to Debra Lambert (301–713– 

2341), by May 5, 2011. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: April 15, 2011. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9718 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS